User talk:Ali55te

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 21:29, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Warning templates

Hi Ali55te. Just a notice: it's best to avoid templating the regulars, such as this. Please also note the definition of vandalism, which isn't an edit you disagree with. I am also going to introduce two templates of my own below: one which is a belated welcome, and the other which introduces notifications of sanctions for editors who act impolitely in any way, or who edit war concerning issues related to the Caucuses, as I thought you might be unaware. Thanks! Magog the Ogre (talk) 07:44, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello, Ali55te! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking

if shown; this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Magog the Ogre (talk) 07:44, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
A tutorial • Our five pillars • Getting mentored How to: Edit a page • Upload and use images • Create your first article Intuitive guide to Wikipedia • Article Creation Wizard
Getting help
Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Help desk: A Wiki Styled page to ask questions on Help directory: A comprehensive list-style help contents page
Policies and guidelines
Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons List of policies • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • List of guidelines Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The community
Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists
Writing articles
Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Simplified manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Peer review • Featured content
Miscellaneous
User pages • Talk pages Awards a registered contributor can achieve and award Clean up: General • Spam • Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Notice of sanctions

The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose, at their own discretion, sanctions on any editor working on pages broadly related to Armenia-Azerbaijan and related conflicts if the editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. If you engage in further inappropriate behavior in this area, you may be placed under sanctions including blocks, a revert limitation or an article ban. The committee's full decision can be read at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2#Final decision. Magog the Ogre (talk) 07:44, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I want to try to explain the situation with a 5 minutes long video. I hope you will have time to watch it. Here is the link http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZu2zqFE_gI . Especially give attention to the statement especially 3:34 - 3:52

So the edits which tries to remove the origin of the insturment has the same intention as you see in this video. This is not a simple disagreement between editors. That is why I am continously reporting the case as vandalism. In this extreme situations sometimes it is hard to stay calm. Ali55te (talk) 00:22, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not involved in the particulars of the dispute here. In fact I'm entirely unqualified to do so. If you think you were acting completely correctly, feel free to speak to admin Dbachmann, who is familiar with the background. Really I don't have a horse in this race, but referring to well intentioned edits as vandalism is a bad sign for me. You might want to check out WP:DV, which deals with that very issue. In addition, I see three different people you've been edit warring with in the past few days, and that's not good. Please try to come to a consensus on the talk page first. Magog the Ogre (talk) 01:32, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, please follow the fake case that has been made by one of the editor with a bad faith at Duduk article against me ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Hetoum_I ). When the case is terminated I want this notice of sanctions is to be reconsidered because I never violated the 3R rule and I added references related to my edits I did nothing wrong. Thank you. Ali55te (talk) 01:32, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you've only received a notice. You haven't even had the sanctions placed on you, and I don't have plans to do so at the moment. I'd be glad to cross out some of the wording though, mainly "if you engage in further inappropriate behavior." Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:21, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Ali55te. You have new messages at Ebe123's talk page.
Message added 21:44, 21 March 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

User:Dighapet

An AE proceeding was launched against User:Dighapet [1]. This may concern you since you were involved in editing articles with his participation. Gorzaim (talk) 00:33, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 23:59, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Istanbul progrom

Hi Ali55te. FYI, I just noticed that you voted "oppose" twice. Take care. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 04:33, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Hi, Ali55te. When you have time, could you check Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Meowy ? Thank you. Takabeg (talk) 09:57, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Armenian quote

Could you please explain why you deleted my edit in the talk page of that article? Filanca (talk) 21:49, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because that reference says that it can not be confirmed that the hitlers quote was exactly like that in the document but you wrote something there which has nothing to do with the reference. If you want to include it you can add to the last part but with writing what it is written in the reference. Ali55te (talk) 21:52, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am carrying this discussion to the talk page of the article. Meanwhile, please do not delete the sourced material. For one thing, it will be your third revert, which may be violating a Wikipedia rule. Let us speak about it first. Filanca (talk) 19:01, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are three documents which contains the quote who remembers the annihliation of the Armenians. 1014-Ps,789-Ps and L-3. The lawyer says that we understood that L-3 is the merge of the speeches on the previous two documents. But since it did not came as the same way other documents we will not offer L-3 as evidence. Since 1014-Ps includes the quote of the "who remembers the annihilation of the armenians" and the previous polish part which you can see it from the references. So do not misslead people. Apart from that L-3 is not rejected it is just not offered as evidence but it does not metter quote is also in other documents Ali55te (talk) 20:54, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

last edits on armenian quote

Hi,

On my last edit I wrote that only L-3 document contains the Armenian quote and I added the reference to documents 1014-PS, 789-Ps. You somehow read that wrongly and reverted the edit so now it writes that 3 documents include the armenian quote and you removed all the references to the 1014 and 789. Just read my last edit carefully and try to recover that part. I said 3 documents include the Hitler's speech on that day not the Armenian quote. Ali55te (talk) 01:10, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. This was an inadvertent mistake of mine. Sorry. It seems you have already corrected the damage and I'll check the article thoroughly when I have time, in order not to leave anything missing. Meanwhile I saw that you moved the information about the source of the article from its dedicated section to discussions section. Since most of the discussions center on the source, I suggest to have a dedicated section for the source - what is it, where it was found, who found it, etc. apart from the section about discussions. Filanca (talk) 10:21, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

writing facts with referencing Albert Reisman

I have seen that you add a sentence to the origin of the document with referencing Arnold Reisman, but he is not a historian and he is not recognized as a genocide scholar. If his sentences can be written as a fact like that than the we can clearly write that the quote is from the Hitler's speech with referencing the genocide scholars. I think you should move that statement to the contesting interpretations and change the title of the subsection to Origin of the document according to Louis P. Lochner 23:36, 29 September 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ali55te (talk • contribs)

Let me have a look, which sentence exactly you are speaking about? Filanca (talk) 12:53, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Ali55te (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Someone openned a sockpuppet investigation related to me and another person. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Xebulon/Archive#30_September_2011 an administrator with a checkuser privilage checked the accoutns and he wrote that I have no connection with the Xebulon and the other account has. But it seems like AGK read that wrongly because he blocked me and he did not do anything about the other person. I sent some e-mails to the Admins, sorry for that interruption because it took some time to realse that I can not reach my talk page because it is redirected by AGK. Thank you for your interest

Accept reason:

Unblocked per the response on AGK's talk page. Apologies for the inconvenience. Kuru (talk) 13:35, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've just double-checked and confirmed Jdelanoy's findings - technically speaking, you are most certainly unrelated to the other accounts. I've left AGK a note about this as have several others; hopefully we'll get this sorted out soon. If he didn't read things wrong, it's possible there may be some other reason for the block we're missing. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 21:34, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't accuse editors of vandalism unless you're sure they have committed it. In particular, avoid using the word in edit summaries (such as "reverting vandalism"), and be very careful about posting vandalism warning templates on users' talkpages. Review the vandalism policy thoroughly before you do that, and see especially the section "What vandalism is not". Note that content disputes are not vandalism, and that good-faith edits of any kind, even if you think them misguided, are not to be considered vandalism. Vandalism accusations without any basis in policy are bad for the climate on the wiki and make constructive discussion more difficult. See also Wikipedia:Avoid the word "vandal".

I only did our duty. Now you came back here, you have right to edit. But we have good chance to control your hyper biased edits. Takabeg (talk) 16:05, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Takabeg (talk) 16:05, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What is your duty ? Your duty is to contribute to the wikipedia. Without making sure that I was a suckpuppet you started to remove all my work from wikipedia. I wonder if there is any other distinct case in wikipedia that one user without making sure about suckpuppetry case removed all the work of another user in 1 hour. Even for verified sockpuppets I wonder if anyone removed all the reliable resources from wikipedia. I thought you would write an excuse message after Anathean warned about the suckpuppetry case because that time you had a good reason to check the suckpuppetry case. I suggest you to stop editing wikipedia for 1 day and think about the actions you made during that 1 day period. Ali55te (talk) 16:35, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Conscience Films for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Conscience Films is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Conscience Films until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Dac04 (talk) 16:38, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AE report filed by User:Grandmaster

User:Grandmaster has filed an AE report on Nagorno-Karabakh trying to limit participation in the article. Take a look as a user active on the article’s talk pages. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Nagorno-Karabakh_article Dehr (talk) 16:50, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Restricting access to users in Armenia-Azerbaijan

I would like to pick the brain of more experienced users about the ongoing exchange between [User:Grandmaster] and a couple of administrators. Grandmaster suggests to restrict access to some and potentially to all articles in Armenia-Azerbaijan by excluding new users [9]. You can reply on my home page if you wish. Dehr (talk) 19:19, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 20

Hi. When you recently edited Armenian Genocide, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Roger Smith (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:57, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Nakhchivan (city), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Armenian. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:54, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tamzara

Please see Talk:Tamzara. Parishan (talk) 12:34, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:23, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!

Thank you for opposing the denial of the Armenian Genocide. May I ask how you place the notification on your page about opposing the denial. I also want this. HyeSK (talk) 22:23, 6 August 2016 (UTC)HyeSK[reply]